24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Maternal Mortality’ Category

The Best Practice Guidelines: Transfer from Home Birth to Hospital – Collaboration Can Improve Outcomes

April 17th, 2014 by avatar

 By Lawrence Leeman, MD, MPH and Diane Holzer, LM, CPM, PA-C

© http://www.mybirth.com.au/

© http://www.mybirth.com.au/

On Tuesday, readers learned about the history and objectives of the Home Birth Consensus Summit, a collective of stakeholders, whose goal is to improve maternal infant health outcomes and increase collaboration between all those involved in serving women who are planning home births.  The interdisciplinary collaboration that occurs during the Summits brings representatives from many different perspectives to the table in order to improve the birth process for women and babies. You may want to start with the post “Finding Common Ground: The Home Birth Consensus Summit“ and then enjoy today’s post on the Home Birth Consensus Summit’s just released “The Best Practice Guidelines: Transfer from Home Birth to Hospital.”  Today’s post was written by Dr. Lawrence Leeman and Midwife Diane Holzer, two of the members on the HBCS Collaboration Task Force, a subgroup tasked with developing these transfer guidelines.  Share your thoughts on these new guidelines and your opinion on if you feel that they will improve safety and outcomes for mothers and babies. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

Leea Brady was a second-time mother whose first baby was born at home. One day past her due date, an ultrasound revealed high levels of amniotic fluid, which can pose a risk during delivery. Although she planned to have her baby at home, on the advice of her midwife, Leea transferred to her local hospital.

“I knew that we needed to be in the hospital in case anything went wrong,” said Brady. “I was really surprised when I arrived and the hospital staff told me they had read my birth plan, and they would do everything they could to honor our intentions for the birth. My midwife was able to stay throughout the birth, which meant a lot, because I had a trusting relationship with her. She clearly had good relationships with the hospital staff, and they worked together as a team.”

A recent descriptive study (Cheyney, 2014) reports that about ten percent of women who plan home births transfer to the hospital after the onset of labor. The reason for the overwhelming majority of transfers are the need for labor augmentation and other non-emergent issues. Brady’s transfer from a planned home birth to the hospital represents the ideal: good communication and coordination between providers in different settings, minimizing the potential for negative outcomes.

However, in some communities, lack of trust and poor communication between clinicians during the transfer have jeopardized the physical and emotional well being of the family, and been frustrating for both transferring and receiving providers. Lack of role clarity and poor communication across disciplines have been linked to preventable adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes, including death.(Guise, 2013,Cornthwaite, 2008) With optimal communication and cooperation among health care providers, though, families often report high satisfaction, despite not being in the location of their choice.

Recent national initiatives have been directed at improving interprofessional collaboration in maternity care.(Vedam, 2014) This is why a multi-disciplinary working group of leaders from obstetrics, family medicine, pediatrics, midwifery, and consumer groups came together to form a set of guidelines for transfer from home to hospital. The Best Practice Guidelines: Transfer from Planned Home Birth to Hospital are being officially launched today by the Home Birth Consensus Summit and will be highlighted at a series of upcoming presentations at conferences and health care facilities.

The authors of the guidelines, known as the Home Birth Summit Collaboration Task Force, formed as a result of their work together at the Home Birth Summits.

© http://flic.kr/p/3mcESR

© http://flic.kr/p/3mcESR

“Some hospital based providers are fearful of liability concerns, or they are unfamiliar with the credentials and the training of home birth providers,” said Dr. Timothy Fisher, MD, MS, at the Hubbard Center for Women’s Health in Keene, NH and an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dartmouth Medical School. “But families are going to choose home birth, for a variety of cultural and personal beliefs. These guidelines are the first of their kind to provide a template for hospitals and home birth providers to come together with clearly defined expectations.”

The guidelines provide a roadmap for maternity care organizations developing policies around the transfer from home to hospital. They are also appropriate for transfer from a free-standing birth center to hospital.

The guidelines include model practices for the midwife and the hospital staff. Some guidelines include the efficient transfer of records and information, a shared-decision making process among hospital staff and the transferring family, and ongoing involvement of the transferring midwife as appropriate.

“When the family sees that their midwife trusts and respects the doctor receiving care, that trust is transferred to the new provider,” said Dr. Ali Lewis, a member of the HBCS Collaboration Task Force. She became involved with the work of the committee in part because of her experiences with a transfer that was not handled optimally. “It is rare that transfers come in as true emergency. But when they do, if the midwife can tell the family she trusts my decisions, then I can get consent much more quickly, which results in better care and higher patient satisfaction.”

The guidelines also encourage hospital providers and staff to be sensitive to the psychosocial needs of the woman that result from the change of birth setting.

“When families enter into the hospital and feel as if things are being done to them as opposed to with them, they feel like a victim in the process,” said Diane Holzer, LM, CPM, PA-C, and the chair of the HBCS Collaboration Task Force. “When families are incorporated in the decision-making process, and feel as if their baby and their body is being respected, they leave the hospital describing a positive experience, even though it wasn’t what they had planned.”

The guidelines are open source, meaning that hospitals and practices can use or adapt any part of the guidelines. The Home Birth Summit delegates welcome endorsements of the guidelines from organizations, institutions, health care providers, and other stakeholders.

References

Cornthwaite, K., Edwards, S., & Siassakos, D. (2013). Reducing risk in maternity by optimising teamwork and leadership: an evidence-based approach to save mothers and babies. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27(4), 571-581.

Cheyney, M., Bovbjerg, M., Everson, C., Gordon, W., Hannibal, D., & Vedam, S. (2014). Outcomes of Care for 16,924 Planned Home Births in the United States: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health.

Guise, J. M., & Segel, S. (2008). Teamwork in obstetric critical care. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 22(5), 937-951.

Vedam S, Leeman L, Cheyney M, Fisher T, Myers S, Low L, Ruhl C. Transfer from planned home birth to hospital: inter-professional collaboration leads to quality improvement . Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, November 2014, In Press.

About the Authors:

leeman larry headshotDr. Lawrence Leeman, MD, MPH/Medical Director, Maternal Child Health, received his degree from University of California, San Francisco in 1988 and completed residency training in Family Medicine at UNM. He practiced rural Family Medicine at the Zuni/Ramah Indian Health Service Hospital for six years. He subsequently earned a fellowship in Obstetrics. He is board certified in Family Medicine. He directs the Family Medicine Maternal and Child Health service and fellowship and co-medical director of the UNM Hospital Mother-Baby Unit. Dr. Leeman practices the family medicine with a special interest in the care of pregnant women and newborns. He is Medical Director of the Milagro Program that provides prenatal care and maternity care services to women with substance abuse problems. Dr. Leeman is a Professor in the Departments of Family & Community Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. He is currently the Managing Editor for the nationwide Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics (ALSO) program. Areas of research include rural maternity care, pelvic floor outcomes after childbirth, family planning, and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Clinic: Family Medicine Center

Diane Holzer head shotDiane Holzer, LM, CPM, PA-C, has been a practicing midwife for over 30 years with experience in both home and birth center. She was one of the founding women who passionately created an infrastructure for the integration of home birth midwifery into the system. She sat on the Certification Task Force which led to the CPM credential and also was a board member of the Midwifery Education and Accreditation council for 13 years. She served the Midwives Alliance of North America on the board for 20 years and is the chair of the International Section being the liaison to the International Confederation of Midwives. Diane is the Chair of the Collaboration Task Force of the Home Birth Summit and currently has a home birth practice and works as a Physician Assistant doing primary health care in a rural Family Practice clinic.

Babies, Guest Posts, Home Birth, informed Consent, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery, Newborns, Practice Guidelines, Transforming Maternity Care , , , , , , , ,

Why the California Toolkit: “Improving Health Care Response to Preeclampsia” Was Created

February 6th, 2014 by avatar

by Christine H. Morton, PhD

Researcher and Lamaze International Board Member Christine H. Morton, Phd shares information about a just released Toolkit on educating professionals about preeclampsia and it’s potentially very serious consequences.  Dr. Morton discusses how you can get a copy, take a webinar introducing the features and help reduce the number of women impacted by this serious pregnancy illness. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager.

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 10.25.11 PMWhen my academic partner and I observed childbirth classes several years ago as part of our Lamaze International-funded research (Morton 2009, Morton et al, 2007), we noted that many childbirth educators included a list of signs and symptoms to watch out for during their initial class meeting with expectant couples.  Some of these signs and symptoms were signals of early labor (mucous plug, leaking amniotic sac, contractions) while others might portend a more serious complication such as placental abruption (bright red bleeding), or preeclampsia (blurred vision, extreme swelling, headache), or worse case scenario, fetal demise (reduced to no fetal movement).  At the time, we wondered about the seeming contradiction of classes ostensibly designed to promote confidence in women’s bodies to give birth while from the outset telling women about things to watch out for, or “warning signs.”  Some instructors advised students to post the list on the fridge or on the bathroom mirror.

Now, after five years working at the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, and reviewing hundreds of cases of maternal death, I understand the importance of sharing information with pregnant women (and their partners) so they can understand when a symptom or condition goes beyond normal.  I understand why it is so important for women to know their own bodies, including their normal blood pressure, so they (or their partners) can be effective patient advocates if they sense something doesn’t feel right.

It’s an important balance for educators and other birth professionals to discuss the normality of physiological birth alongside the reality that about 8-12% of women will have medically complicated births. (Creanga, 2014), (Fridman, 2013) I remember hearing from partners who wanted to know what to look out for, so they could fulfill their roles as “protectors” as well as “co-creators of sacred space,” as one educator referred to them. Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 10.25.45 PM

Preeclampsia is the second leading cause of pregnancy-related death in California, accounting for 17% of all deaths. (Druzin et al, 2014.) Preeclampsia is a severe obstetric condition characterized by high blood pressure, which left untreated, can lead to stroke, prematurity and death of women and babies.  As part of the California Pregnancy-Associated Review (CA-PAMR), an expert committee analyzed the medical records of 25 women who died of preeclampsia.  The committee identified contributing factors, and opportunities to improve care. All of the California deaths due to preeclampsia had some chance of preventability, with nearly half having a good-to-strong chance to alter the outcome.  For every woman who dies, at least 40-50 experience severe complications requiring ICU admission and another 400-500 experience moderate-to-severe complications from preeclampsia or other hypertensive disorders.   One important factor in the deaths was delayed recognition and response to signs and symptoms of severe hypertension.

Screen Shot 2014-02-05 at 10.26.04 PMThe lessons we learned from reviewing those cases were used to inform the development of the California Toolkit: Improving Health Care Response to Preeclampsia.  CMQCC and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) Division collaborated to develop and disseminate this toolkit using Title V MCH funds provided by CDPH-MCAH. The goal of this toolkit is to guide and support obstetrical providers, clinical staff, hospitals and healthcare organizations to develop methods within their facilities for timely recognition and organized, swift response to preeclampsia and to implement successful quality improvement programs for preeclampsia that will decrease short- and long-term preeclampsia-related morbidity in women who give birth in California. (Druzin et al 2014).

Experts from obstetrics, perinatology, midwifery, nursing, anesthesia, emergency medicine and patient advocacy relied on best evidence, expert opinion and the Toolkit includes:

  • Compendium of Best Practices: eighteen articles on multiple topics around hypertensive disorders
  • Appendices: Collection of all Care Guidelines including tables, charts and forms that are highlighted in Article Sample forms for policy and procedure
  • Slide set for Professional Education: slides that summarize the problem of and the best practices for preeclampsia to be used for local education and training

Of particular interest, the toolkit addresses the management of severe preeclampsia < 34 weeks, the importance of recognition and treatment of delayed postpartum preeclampsia/eclampsia in the emergency department and early postpartum follow-up upon discharge for women who were diagnosed with severe hypertension during childbirth.  The Preeclampsia Foundation was a partner on the Task Force, and has created educational material for pregnant women and their families, in English and Spanish.  Hospitals, clinics and childbirth educators can order these materials at no cost (shipping and handling only) from the Foundation.  There is a free webinar available on February 25th introducing the toolkit to professionals.preeclampsia

Thinking back to my childbirth education observations, I am struck that the educators never mentioned preeclampsia or defined it.  Not one suggested women should know their normal blood pressure.  The Preeclampsia Foundation commissioned a report in 2012 which reviewed the top pregnancy and childbirth advice books and found that many either failed to mention the condition or contained misleading or incorrect information about preeclampsia, HELLP or eclampsia.  With hypertensive disorders of pregnancy on the rise (as well as other maternal morbidities) (Fridman et al 2013; Creanga et al 2014) it’s important for childbirth educators and birth professionals to help women understand signs and symptoms and to know what those signs and symptoms might mean.

Even as we know most women are healthy and are highly unlikely to experience a severe complication in pregnancy and childbirth, we must also acknowledge that some women do, and by leaving them out of the classes and books, we silence their reality.  As one woman noted in a research study on experiences of severe pregnancy complications said:

There’s a lot of information out there or bad information that can make you feel like you did this to yourself. But there’s every kind of woman that has gone through some sort of thing. You don’t see red flag kind of behaviors in the population of women who get preeclampsia or a lot of the other kinds of issues that can cause childbirth injury and the bad childbirth experiences. I understand the way the books put it is that they want to reassure you that it’s not going to happen to you, but the kind of flipside of that is to say that when it does happen to you, where are you then? You know? I think they set you up for PTSD, for postpartum depression. They kind of make it seem, like, “Oh hey! You’re fine. Everything’s going to be great. It’s not going to happen to you” so what are you left when it does happen? (Lisa, in Morton et al 2103).

We owe it to pregnant women to give them the information they need to understand the fullness of their pregnancy and childbirth experiences, whether normal or complicated.  The Preeclampsia Toolkit will hopefully help those clinicians who care for childbearing women better manage and reduce the severity of complications when they arise.  Since its release last month, the Toolkit has been downloaded over 1376 times in all 50 states states (plus District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) along with 5 countries; Australia, Canada, Wales, Mexico and Malaysia.  The response to this Toolkit has been incredible and it is clear that there is a need for practical tools that hospitals and clinicians can use to improve their response to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. 

Do you share information about preeclampsia in your classes and with your clients?  How do you discuss it?  What are your favorite learning tools?  Let us know in the comments. – SM

References

Creanga, MD, PhD, Andreea A. ; Cynthia J. Berg, MD, MPH, Jean Y. Ko, PhD, Sherry L. Farr, PhD, Van T. Tong, MPH, F. Carol Bruce, RN, MPH, and William M. Callaghan, MD, MPH, Maternal Mortality and Morbidity in the United States: Where Are We Now? JOURNAL OF WOMEN’S HEALTH, Volume 23, Number 1, 2014, DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4617

Druzin, MD Maurice; Laurence E. Shields, MD; Nancy L. Peterson, RNC, PNNP, MSN; Valerie Cape, BSBA. Preeclampsia Toolkit: Improving Health Care Response to Preeclampsia (California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative Toolkit to Transform Maternity Care) Developed under contract #11-10006 with the California Department of Public Health; Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Division; Published by the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative, January 2014.

Fridman, PhD, Moshe; Lisa M. Korst, MD, PhD, Jessica Chow, MPH, Elizabeth Lawton, MHS, Connie Mitchell, MD, MPH, and Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH, Trends in Maternal Morbidity Before and During Pregnancy in California, Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print December 19, 2013: e1–e9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301583)

Morton, C. H. (2009). A fine line: Ethical issues facing childbirth educators negotiating evidence, beliefs, and experience. The Journal of perinatal education, 18(1), 25.

Morton, C.H., A. Nack, and J. Banker, Traumatic Childbirth Experiences: Narratives of Women, Partners, and Health Care Providers. Unpublished manuscript. 2013.

Morton, C. H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Contemporary dilemmas in American childbirth education: Findings from a comparative ethnographic study. The Journal of perinatal education, 16(4), 25. Chicago

 

Childbirth Education, Guest Posts, Maternal Mortality, News about Pregnancy, Pre-eclampsia , , , , ,

Research Review: Outcomes of Care for 16,924 Planned Home Births in the United States

January 30th, 2014 by avatar

Today’s post on Science & Sensibility coincides with the release of a long awaited study looking at the home birth data collected by the Midwives Alliance of North America MANAStats project, 2004-2009.  Judith Lothian, PhD, RN, LCCE, FACCE reviews the research that examines outcomes of almost 17,000 planned home births in the United States.  To date, this is the largest dataset of planned home births available. Dr. Lothian takes a look at what the research found and helps S&S readers to understand the key points of the published paper.  - Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

The American College of Nursing today announced the publication in the Journal of Midwifery and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wickenden/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wickenden/

Women’s Health of important new US research on the outcomes of home birth: Outcomes of Care for 16,924 Planned Home Births in the United States: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009“. This research is important for two reasons: it adds to the increasing body of research that supports the safety of home birth for healthy women in the US, and it demonstrates the value and importance of the National Data Registry for Midwife-Led Birth, the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) Statistics Project 2.0 dataset(2). This is the first publication of home birth outcomes research in the US since 2005, nearly a decade. Just as importantly, it is the first major research study published using the MANA dataset.

Studying planned home birth presents unusual challenges. A randomized control trial is not possible because women are not willing to consent to randomization to home or hospital. Unlike other countries, data in the US are collected state by state and most birth certificates (the most common, although often unreliable, way to collect birth data) do not collect information about planned home birth. As a result, unlike in countries like the Netherlands, population based research is not possible. There is a need in the US for a system for universal maternity care data collection.  In response to this need, and the need for high quality data on midwifery outcomes, MANA in 2004 began the momentous work of developing a national data registry for midwife-led birth. The result is the National Data Registry for Midwife-Led Births, the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) Statistics Project 2.0 dataset.  A companion article in the same issue of the Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health is available to read more about the development and validations of the National Registry for Midwife-Led Births.

About the study

For this study, data were collected from 2004-2009 using the MANA Stats 2.0 Web-based tool. Midwifery participation was voluntary. Data were contributed by 432 different midwives: 20 to 30 percent of all active Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) and a much lower percentage of active Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) contributed to the dataset. Other types of midwives who also participated included Licensed Midwives (LMs), Licensed Direct Entry Midwives (LDMs), Certified Midwives (CMs), and a small percentage of unlicensed direct entry midwives. The midwives obtained written informed consent from the women at the onset of care to contribute data, including outcomes, to the registry. It’s important to note that women were entered into the registry by the midwives at the onset of care before outcomes were available. More than 95% of the women cared for by the midwives who participated in the registry provided consent. The sample for the study included all women who intended to give birth at home at the time they went into labor. The final sample of women was 16,924.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyeliam/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyeliam/

The women were mostly white, married, and college educated. Almost 2/3 of the woman paid for midwifery services out of pocket. The sample came largely from the Western United States.  Almost 78% of the women had previous babies (8% having had a previous cesarean) and a just over 22% were expecting their first babies. Some, but very few, of the women in the sample had complications or co-morbidities (for example, 1.3 % breech, 0.4% multiple gestation, 1.4% pregnancy induced hypertension, 0.8% gestational diabetes).

What follows is a snapshot of some of the most important findings of the study. The authors go into great detail presenting and discussing the findings and then comparing their findings to previous published studies of planned home birth. I encourage you to read the full article.

Study results

Almost 94% of the women had spontaneous vaginal births. There was a 5.2% cesarean rate and an 87% VBAC rate. Only 4.5% of the sample required oxytocin augmentation and/or epidural. Ninety two percent of the births were full term, 2.5% were pre-term and 5.1% were post-term. Less than 1% of the babies were low birth weight. There was an intrapartum transfer rate of 10.9%. Women giving birth for the first time were three times more likely to transfer during labor, most often for failure to progress. Postpartum transfers were 1.7% for women who gave birth at home. The most common reason (over 70%) was for complications related to hemorrhage and/or retained placenta. Neonatal transfer was 1.0% with the most common reason being respiratory distress or low Apgar.

In this sample, the rate of postpartum hemorrhage (defined as over 500cc in a vaginal birth and 1000 cc in a cesarean) was 15.4%, higher than previous research has reported. That said, the transfers for excessive bleeding were low. Active management of third stage is infrequent in this sample. The authors posit that without intravenous oxytocin administration, the 500cc benchmark for diagnosing hemorrhage may not be appropriate in this physiologic birth population.

The intrapartum neonatal death rate was 1.3 per 1000, consistent with rates reported in some studies, but higher than the rates reported in others. While the rate is still relatively low, it might, the authors suggest, be partially explained by a sample that included women who are at higher risk for adverse outcomes (multiple gestations, breech presentations, VBAC, gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia). When these women were removed from the sample, the intrapartum death rate drops to 0.85 per 1000, a rate that is statistically congruent with rates reported in most studies, with the exception of large population studies in the Netherlands that report somewhat lower rates.(deJonge et al, 2009). The authors also note that the lack of an integrated system and possible delays in transfer may contribute to the small but somewhat higher rate of intrapartum neonatal death in the sample.

There was one maternal death in the study, as a result of a blood clot in the heart at three days postpartum after an uncomplicated pregnancy, labor, birth and postpartum.

Discussion

As in any research there are limitations. This is not a population based study. Not all midwives in the US contributed data to the registry. The births took place mostly in the Western United States. The women were largely white, college educated and married. Nonetheless, the findings make a major contribution to the literature on planned home birth supporting the findings of previous research conducted both in the US and in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (Johnson & Daviss, 2005; Janssen et al 2009; Hutton et al, 2009; Janssen et al, 2002; deJonge et al, 2009; Birthplace in England, 2011).

In spite of the meticulous development and validation of the dataset and the acknowledged limitations of the data, I suspect the usual naysayers will question the validity and the usefulness of the dataset. I suspect those opposed to planned home birth will exaggerate the implications of findings related, for example, to maternal bleeding in spite of the fact that almost no mothers required transfer or intervention, and point out the higher intrapartum neonatal mortality numbers than other studies have reported without discussing the fact that the increase is largely accounted for by infants of women at higher risk for adverse outcomes (pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, multiple gestation, VBAC,  breech). It is difficult for anyone to dismiss the importance of the overall excellent outcomes for both mothers and babies.

The excellent outcomes in this study, (with care provided mostly by CPMs & LMs, in a country that does not have integrated systems of care including seamless transfer and collaboration between providers, and with a sample that included women who are usually considered at higher risk for planned home birth {breech, VBAC, multiple gestations, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes}), should make us pause. Could it be that even for women with some risk factors, planned home birth could be as safe as hospital birth?  What would the outcomes be if we had an integrated system of care?

Personal “Take Aways”

  • The MANA dataset is an extremely valuable resource for researchers. Thanks to the work of MANA, the dedicated midwives who participate in the registry, and the women who consent to having their outcomes registered, we have further evidence, this time in the US, that planned home birth reduces interventions including cesarean, and has outcomes similar or better than planned hospital births. CPMs, CMs and LDMs, who are the largest group of midwives contributing to the dataset, deserve recognition and respect. The positive outcomes reflect the excellence of care that they provide for women. With the publication of this important study, and the publication of the companion article describing the development and validation of the dataset, hopefully, many more midwives, including CNMs and those who practice in other parts of the country, will be persuaded to contribute to the registry.
  •  I encourage you to share the findings of this study with the women you teach, talk to and touch. Most women will not choose home birth but knowing that women today give birth safely at home without routine interventions or tied to machines, and subjected to the ticking clock, should give all women a boost of confidence in their ability to give birth. And, it just might encourage some women to think about having a planned home birth.
  • We might think of a childbirth education registry. We have wanted high quality data for decades to track the outcomes of childbirth education. Perhaps this is a way to collect quality data?

Conclusion

This is a landmark study of US home birth. Hats off to MANA for its ground breaking contribution in collecting and providing data that will further advance our knowledge of planned home birth and midwifery.  Hats off to the dedicated midwives who contributed their outcomes to the dataset, and to the women who were so willing to share their information with the world. And, hats off to the dedicated researchers, Melissa Cheyney, Marit Bovbjerg, Courtney Everson, Wendy Gordon, Darcy Hannibal and Saraswathi Vedam who continue to contribute in groundbreaking ways to promoting and supporting normal, physiologic birth and the health and safety of childbearing women and babies.

 References

Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. (2011). Perinatal and Maternal Outcomes by Planned Place of Birth for Healthy Women with Low Risk Pregnancies: The Birthplace in England National Prospective Cohort Study, British Medical Journal 343, d7400.

Cheyney, M., Bovbjerg, M., Everson, C., Gordon, W., Hannibal, D. & Vedam, S. (2014). Outcomes of Care for 16, 924 Planned Home Births in the United States: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health.

Cheyney, M., Bovbjerg, M., Everson, C., Gordon, W., Hannibal, D. & Vedam, S. (2014). Development and Validation of a National Data Registry for Midwife-Led Births: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project 2.0 Dataset. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health.

de Jonge,  B. van der Goes,  A. Ravelli, M. Amelink-Verburg , et al.(2009). Perinatal Mortality and Morbidity in a Nationwide Cohort of 529,688 Low-risk Planned Home and Hospital Births. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 16, no. 9, 1177-84.

Hutton, E.,  Reitsma, A., Kaufman, K. (2009). Outcomes Associated with Planned Home and Planned Hospital Births in Low-Risk Women Attended by Midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2006:A Retrospective Cohort Study. Birth 36, no. 3, 180-89.

Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee Sk. (2009). Outcomes of Planned Home Births with Registered Midwife versus Attended by Regulated Midwives versus Planned hospital Birth in British Columbia. Canadian Medical Association Journal 181, no. 6, 377-83.

Janssen, P. Lee,S.,  Rya,E,  et al. (2002). Outcomes of Planned Home Births versus Planned Hospital Births after Regulation of Midwifery in British Columbia. 166, no. 3, 315-23.

Johnson, K. & Davis, B.A. (2005). Outcomes of Planned Home Brth with Certified Professional Midwives: A Large Prospective Study in North America. British Medical Journal 330, 1416-19.

About Judith Lothian

@ Judith Lothian

@ Judith Lothian

Judith Lothian, PhD, RN, LCCE, FACCE is a nurse and childbirth educator. She is an Associate Professor at the College of Nursing, Seton Hall University and the current Chairperson of the Lamaze Certification Council Governing Body. Judith is also the Associate Editor of the Journal of Perinatal Education and writes a regular column for the journal. Judith is the co-author of The Official Lamaze Guide: Giving Birth with Confidence. Her research focus is planned home birth and her most recent publication is Being Safe: Making the Decision to Have a Planned Home Birth in the US published in the Journal of Clinical Ethics (Fall 2013 ).

 

Babies, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Home Birth, Maternal Mortality, Maternity Care, Midwifery, New Research, Newborns, Research , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Assessing Birth Settings to Improve Value and Optimize Outcomes in U.S. Maternity Care

March 12th, 2013 by avatar

by Wendy Gordon, CPM, LM, MPH, MANA Division of Research, Assistant Professor, Bastyr University Dept of Midwifery

Today, occasional contributor, midwife and researcher Wendy Gordon, LM, CPM, MPH, Midwives Alliance Division of Research, shares some insights into some of the fascinating discussions that took place at last week’s Institute of Medicine’s workshop focusing on birth place settings.  From all reports from the many people in attendance, this workshop will hopefully help move the research and discussion on the topic of birth place settings forward and create opportunities for more families to chose to birth where they feel most comfortable and safe. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

___________________________

 

Hannah Russell-Davis nurses her newborn son
©photo by Michael Davis http://getprivatepractice.com

Last week marked an historic opportunity for maternity care providers to regroup and become inspired to move our professions forward together in all birth settings.  The two-day event, hosted by the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) and sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, focused on “Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings” and brought together the greatest minds in research and practice in all three birth settings: home, birth center and hospital.  Issues of tremendous importance to consumers, providers and researchers in the birth community were discussed in a collegial and inspiring manner… marred only by one presentation that stirred a bit of controversy.

Historic Workshop Can Positively Impact Future Research 

Similar to the first IOM conference on this topic over 30 years ago, the intent of last week’s gathering was to discuss the research regarding the effect of place of birth on maternal and infant outcomes. Invited speakers included researchers, public health professionals, midwives, nurses, pediatricians and obstetricians.  In structured mini-sessions, panelists shared their expertise on the following topics:

  • the historical and current picture of who is giving birth in the different settings;
  • definitions of “low-risk” versus “high-risk”;
  •  what the best research says about safety in various settings; 
  • education, regulation and management of different types of providers;
  •  methods of collection and use of data regarding maternity care and birth in various settings; 
  •  cost and value differences between settings and reimbursement issues; and 
  • the rich and varied perspectives of providers in the three childbirth settings.

Members of the audience were just as impressive as the panelists themselves when, at the end of each panel, the microphone was opened and significant content was added through their questions and comments.  

A lot of ground was covered over the course of the two days, and there were several takeaways that had particular impact for the midwifery community. The home birth rate in the U.S. was predicted to continue its rise with the next release of CDC data, reaching about 31,500 births nationwide in 2010. The MANA Stats web-based system was touted by attendees as the best data collection system for home birth outcomes.  Birth certificate data was shown to still have major problems in its ability to accurately capture intended place of birth and other reliability issues, despite improvements in recent years.  A Medicaid study from Washington State demonstrated vast cost savings with midwifery care and birth at home and in birth centers.  The workshop report will have tremendous potential to impact contemporary birth policy and research agendas.

Lack of Consumer Representation and Little Discussion of Health Disparities

There was no consumer representation on workshop panels, nor was there a panel addressing disparities in maternal and infant outcomes, which seems to have been a grave oversight of the organizers.  In the 30 years since the last IOM workshop on birth settings, overall infant mortality has been reduced from 11.5/1000 to 6.7/1000, but the black-white gap has actually increased. In 1982, nearly twice as many babies born to black mothers than white mothers died before their first birthday (19.6 infant deaths per 1000 births vs 10.1/1000; National Center for Health Statistics, 1986). Recent mortality figures show that disparity to be even wider (12.67/1000 vs 5.52/1000; Mathews & MacDorman, 2012).

Hannah Russell-Davis holds her son Jack, moments after his birth at their home in Charlottesville, VA. Jack was Hannah’s third home birth.
© photo by Michael Davis http://getprivatepractice.com

With childbirth in home and birth center settings gaining momentum nationally and at the state level, research to support policy in this direction is more important than ever. The best research has shown for decades, and continues to show, that for women with low-risk pregnancies, birth that is planned to occur in the home and birth center settings with a skilled midwife is no more risky than birth in the hospital and results in far fewer interventions, lower cost and higher satisfaction (Vedam et al, 2012).  Hopefully, the breadth of this research can finally start to expand beyond proving that it is safe.

‘Recrudescence’ Revisited

Despite this body of literature, there are still some physicians who persist in torturing the data in an attempt to frame their personal opinions as “science.”  It was disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, to see Dr. Frank Chervenak use his time on the provider panel to do just that. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology recently published an article authored by Dr. Chervenak regarding the “recrudescence of homebirth” (Chervenak et al, 2013), and perhaps it was the controversy stirred by that article that prompted the conference organizers to invite him to speak on this panel. The panel members included Dr. Chervenak as a hospital-based provider, Karen Pelote, CNM with the birth center provider perspective, and Brynne Potter, CPM as a homebirth provider.  Both Pelote and Potter appeared to have taken seriously the purpose of their panel representation and showcased the data on our client-centered models of care, with photos and quotes from women regarding the care they received and their experiences in the birth center and home settings.   

In stark contrast, Chervenak used his 12 minutes (out of 10) that were to be devoted to the hospital provider perspective for, instead, a rapid-fire display of “back-of-the-envelope” bar graphs attempting to show home/hospital differences in 5-minute Apgar scores using raw data drawn from birth certificates.  Since it appears that some doctors are having a hard time getting their “research” on this topic published in peer-reviewed journals, they are presenting their data in settings that do not require peer-review, such as last year’s annual conference of the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (the study still hasn’t been published) and this IOM workshop.  Meanwhile, there are several well-designed studies published in peer-reviewed journals that show that there is no difference in 5-minute Apgar scores between home and hospital settings (Hutton et al, 2009; Janssen et al, 2009; van der Kooy et al, 2011).

Apgar Distribution Hospital vs. Home © Dr. Frank Chervenak 2013

That a professional invited to contribute to a high-level workshop about research would present an un-peer-reviewed thesis based on unreliable data, lacking any statistical analysis, is… well, let’s just say “puzzling.”  Exploiting the concept of “relative risk,” Chervenak sliced and diced the data in more ways than were thought possible to suggest that babies born at home were more likely to have a low 5-minute Apgar score than babies born in the hospital.

“Home Births Should Not Happen”

Chervenak’s non-reviewed data did find a higher rate of Apgar scores of “10” in the home setting versus “9” in the hospital setting. His point? Not that, clinically speaking, there is no difference between a score of 9 vs. 10 (they’re both good). Not that babies might possibly be doing better due to normal physiologic labor and undisturbed birth and that we should explore this further. Instead, he suggested – at this historic setting – that midwives lie about Apgar scores because “no one is watching.”  After a day and a half of earnest, interprofessional collegiality, Chervenak wrapped up his extended presentation with his unabashed opinion: “Home births should not happen.”

Epidemiologists in the room were quick to step to the microphone for the open discussion part of the panel, pointing out the many flaws in Chervenak’s presentation.  Marian MacDorman, Ph.D., senior statistician and researcher for the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, reminded everyone that birth certificate data is notoriously unreliable for neonatal seizures and low Apgar scores; this has been shown time and again for decades and had indeed been discussed earlier in this very workshop.  More importantly, McDorman stated that data from birth certificates cannot be used to make comparisons between settings or providers.  Her point, which deserves some elaboration here, is that there is a very important distinction between “absolute risk” and “relative risk,” and different types of data are better than others depending on what you are trying to describe. 

“When we limit access to certain birth settings because of risk, are we examining the risks of the alternative?” – Brynne Potter, CPM

Absolute vs. Relative Risk

Let’s say that a person’s odds of getting struck by lightning in a heavily populated city are one in a million, and those same odds in a rural area are five in a million. These odds are called your “absolute risk” of being struck by lightning. Another way to look at this is to say that a person’s odds of being struck by lightning are five times higher in a rural area than in a densely-populated area; this is the “relative risk” of a lightning strike in one area over another.

A common approach of anti-homebirth activists is to use the “relative risk” approach and ignore the absolute risk, because it’s much more dramatic and sensationalistic to suggest that the risk of something is “double!” or “triple!” that of something else, even though the absolute risk of those things are very low and may not even be statistically significantly different from each other.  Of course, any infant or maternal mortality is a tragedy.  But one of the key points raised at the IOM workshop was the idea that, in our efforts to identify “safety” with one indicator (mortality) or “truly low-risk” pregnancies by their absence of a particular factor (breech position, for example), we often fail to quantify all of the impacts of the various settings in ways that are meaningful to the women who experience the outcomes, such as the fact that in many areas, the only option for breech delivery is cesarean or the only way a VBAC can happen is at home, attended or not.  As Brynne Potter asked last week: when we limit access to certain birth settings because of risk, are we examining the risks of the alternative?

To return to the lightning analogy, it would be deeply disingenuous for a person to say that you shouldn’t move to a rural area simply because your risk of being struck by lightning is five times higher, without mentioning that at worst, that risk is five in a million. The ethics of this are further called into question when the person suggesting this is a trusted care provider, and is even worse when that person withholds all information about your option to move to a rural area — disregarding all of your other reasons for wanting to doing so — because they have decided that the risk of being hit by lightning there is too high for you.

Clarifying the Validity of Birth Certificate Data

Dr. MacDorman clarified how to interpret the data for anyone who might have been misled by Dr. Chervenak’s slides. She pointed out that regarding low Apgar scores, “the absolute risk is low; that’s all you can say with vital data.”  It doesn’t happen very often in any setting; most studies on homebirth around the world report the occurrence of low Apgar scores (<7) in the range of 1%, and very low scores (<4) are even rarer.  Studies have shown that the more rare an occurrence is, the less likely it is to be captured accurately on the birth certificate (Northam & Knapp, 2006).

Overall, the Midwives Alliance Division of Research (DOR) and other organizations working to improve maternity care are pleased with the near-consensus viewpoint by the majority of the disciplines represented at this workshop: that normal physiologic birth is best for mother and baby and should be the goal of all settings and practitioners.  We are looking forward to the future research inspired by this event.  We believe that there is potential for there to be more movement in the next 30 years than there was since the last IOM workshop on this topic 30 years ago, particularly because of the availability of high-quality datasets such as MANA Stats (primarily planned home births) and the American Association of Birth Centers’ Uniform Data Set (primarily planned birth center births).  As the stewards of the largest database on midwifery care and outcomes of normal physiologic birth in the home setting, the DOR encourages researchers to apply for the MANA Stats data to conduct this important research (application information at mana.org/DOR). 

References:

Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Brent RL, Levene MI, Arabin B. 2013. Planned home birth: The professional responsibility response. AJOG 208(1):31-38.

Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. 2009. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003-2006: A retrospective cohort study. BIRTH 36(3):180-189.

Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK. 2009. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ, doi:10.1503/cmaj.081869.

Mathews, TJ & MacDorman, M. 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports: Infant mortality statistics from the 2008 period linked birth/ infant death data set. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_05.pdf

National Center for Health Statistics. 1986. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1982, Vol II: Mortality, Part A. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 86-1122. Public Health Service: Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Northam S, Knapp TR. 2006. The reliability and validity of birth certificates. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 35(1):3-12.

van der Kooy J, Poeran J, de Graaf JP, Birnie E, Denktas S, Steegers EAP, Bonsel GJ. 2011. Planned home compared with planned hospital births in the Netherlands: Intrapartum and early neonatal death in low-risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 118:1037-46.

Vedam S, Schummers L, Stoll K, Fulton C. 2012. Home Birth: An Annotated Guide to the Literature.  Available online at http://mana.org/DOR/research-resources/.

About Wendy Gordon

Wendy Gordon, LM, CPM, MPH is a midwife, mother and educator in the Seattle area.  She helped to build a busy, blended homebirth practice of nurse-midwives and direct-entry midwives in Portland, Oregon for eight years before recently transitioning to Seattle.  She is a Coordinating Council member of the Midwives Alliance Division of Research, a board member of the Association of Midwifery Educators, and teaches at the Bastyr University Department of Midwifery.

 

 

Guest Posts, Healthcare Reform, Home Birth, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Mortality Rate, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery, Newborns, Transforming Maternity Care , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Unexpected Project: Pre-eclampsia Researched, Revealed and Reviewed. Part II of an interview with Jennifer Carney

February 7th, 2013 by avatar

By: Walker Karraa

Regular contributor Walker Karraa wraps up her interview with Jennifer Carney, who became active with The Preeclampsia Foundation and the Unexpected Project after suffering from eclampsia while pregnant with her second child.  Have you had to answer any questions in your classes or with your clients and patients after the recent episode of Downton Abbey, where one of the characters developed eclampsia?  What have you shared with your pregnant families? Part one of Walker’s interview with Jennifer Carney can be found here. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager.  

Walker: What do you see are the common myths regarding pre-eclampsia?

JC: Common myths? Oh, there are so many. A lot of people seem to think they know what causes preeclampsia and how to cure it. There’s a whole faction of advocates who buy into the work of Dr. Tom Brewer, who in the 1960′s, devised a very high protein diet for mothers based on the idea that preeclampsia is caused by malnutrition. This isn’t supported by the current research, but it gets repeated all the time. Other people argue that preeclampsia is a so-called “lifestyle” disease – caused by obesity and poor prenatal care. Obesity is a risk factor, but it is only one of many and poor prenatal care can cause the disease to go undetected, but it will not cause it to happen in the first place. There are also a lot of people who think that the delivery of the baby will end the risk to the mother – and while it’s true that the removal of the placenta is essential, preeclampsia or eclampsia can still happen up to 6 weeks after delivery. There are other myths, but it strikes me that so many of these myths are rooted in a desire to control pregnancy. If we can blame preeclampsia on one central cause or on the women who develop it themselves, then we can reassure ourselves that we won’t develop it, too. There are risk factors that can increase a woman’s chances of developing the disease, but women without any known risk factors have developed it, too.

It’s not comforting to think that no one is safe, but with knowledge of the signs and symptoms – a woman can react to it promptly and receive the care that she needs. But this will only happen if women get the information and understand that it CAN happen to them. I am blown away by the ways in which preeclampsia and other serious complications are downplayed and dismissed in pregnancy books, online and even by some medical practitioners. Preeclampsia CAN happen to you – but you can deal with it IF you know the signs and the symptoms.

Walker: Can you share with our readers what you are doing with Anne Garrett Addison at The Unexpected Project?

JC: The Unexpected Project is a documentary, website, and book project that will examine the rate of maternal deaths and near-misses in the United States. Anne Garrett Addison, who founded the Preeclampsia Foundation, and I are both classified as near-misses due to preeclampsia. With Unexpected, we want to take a look at all maternal deaths regardless of the cause – preeclampsia, amniotic fluid embolism, hemorrhage, placenta previa, placental abruption, infection, suicide, and any other causes. We also want to look at the women who survived these complications because the line between surviving and dying is in these cases, often quite thin. Every case is different and there is no one factor to blame for the maternal death rate in the US. We will look at interventions and cesarean sections, but we will also look at the lack of information available to women and the tendency of some birth activists to minimize the dangers of serious birth complications.

Current Preeclampsia/Eclampsia StatisticsMaternal mortality and morbidity are, unfortunately, a part of the pregnancy and childbirth experience for women and their families in the US and the world.  While most (99%) of maternal mortalities occur in the developing world, the 1% that occur in developed countries like the US are still of concern to maternity care providers and advocates.  Indeed, U.S. still ranks 50th in the world for its maternal mortality rate (1).

More common than a maternal death, are severe short- or long-term morbidities due to obstetric complications (2).  Some estimate that unexpected complications occur in up to 15% of women who are otherwise healthy at term (2).  

In particular, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including elevated blood pressure, preeclampsia, eclampsia and HELLP syndrome are estimated to affect 12-22% of pregnant women and their babies worldwide each year. (3)  Adverse neonatal outcomes are higher for infants born to women with pregnancies complicated by hypertension.  

In the U.S., upwards of 8 percent or 300,000 pregnant or postpartum women develop preeclampsia or the related condition, HELLP syndrome each year. This number is growing as more women enter pregnancy already hypertensive (cite).  Preeclampsia is still a leading cause of pregnancy-related death in the US and one of the most preventable.  Annually, approximately 300 women die and another 75,000 women experience “near misses” – severe complications and injury such as organ failure, massive blood loss, permanent disability, and premature birth or death of their babies.  Usually, the disease resolves with the birth of the baby and placenta. But, it can occur postpartum–indeed, most maternal deaths occur after delivery.

Recent statistics from Christine Morton, PhD.

The trend toward “normal” or “natural” birth does not seem to allow a lot of space for our stories to be heard or to be told. This has the effect of making survivors feel marginalized – as though their experience is somehow too far outside “normal” to be a part of the overall conversation. The one constant of all of our stories is that none of us expected to become statistics. Our birth plans did not include emergency cesarean sections, seizures, ICUs, blood transfusions, strokes, hysterectomies, CPR, prematurity, PTSD, depression, or death. No one was more surprised than us. This isn’t about assigning blame – this is about finding answers, improving birth for ALL moms to come, and learning to live with the unexpected.

Walker: How did you get involved with researching for the Preeclampsia Foundation?

JC: I started out volunteering with the March of Dimes in the spring following my son’s birth. I started a walk team and raised money, hoping that I would be able to meet other moms who had been through something similar. I felt very alone in the months following his birth. I was dealing with postpartum depression (PPD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and struggling to feel normal again. I had a premature infant – which meant sleeping through the night was a problem for a long time. When I returned to work, I was greeted by a coworker who declared that she now no longer wanted to have children because of what I had gone through. This weighed heavily on me – and I felt like I was the cautionary tale, the one bad pregnancy story that everyone knows. I know I had never heard a story as bad as mine – so I felt deflated, flattened by the whole thing.

With the March of Dimes, I found moms to help me deal with the preemie part of it. As he matured and grew out of the preemie issues, I found that I still had a lot of issues to deal with regarding my own health – both physically and mentally. I decided to volunteer with the Preeclampsia Foundation after they merged with the HELLP Syndrome Society.  The Preeclampsia Foundation is much smaller than the March of Dimes, which allowed me to be much more active as a volunteer. I was able to use my writing and editing skills to work on the newsletter – and when I suggested that someone do a review of the available pregnancy literature based on how well they cover preeclampsia, I was given the opportunity to conduct that research and write the report myself. This was something I had been doing informally in bookstores for a while anyway, so it felt good to be able to look at the literature and confirm that the information really is severely lacking if not downright misleading in a large number of so-called comprehensive books. It really isn’t my fault that I missed the symptoms.

This year, I am coordinating the Orange County, California Promise Walk in Irvine as part of the foundation’s main fundraising campaign on May 18. I am hoping to bring a mental health expert from the California Maternal Mental Health Collaborative out to the walk to talk to the moms about dealing with the emotional impact of their birth experiences.  Many of these moms lost babies, delivered preemies, or suffered severe health issues of their own. Our community as a whole is at a very high risk for mental health issues, myself included.

It wasn’t until this year – 6 years after the birth of my son – that I finally sought professional help dealing with the PTSD from the very difficult birth experience. I feel that the volunteer work helped fill that spot for the past 6 years and brought me to the point where I can now process the trauma in a healthy way. I am not happy that I had eclampsia, but I am beyond grateful for all of the great people that it has indirectly brought into my life.

Closing Thoughts

To have to wait 6 years to receive the vital treatment for PTSD is a travesty. We are so thankful that Jennifer survived both the initial trauma, but endured its legacy of traumatic stress that lingers today. Unfortunately, PTSD subsequent to traumatic childbirth is growing in prevalence, and under-recognized by the majority of women’s health and maternity care providers.  I have learned a great deal from Jennifer and look forward to the work she and her colleagues will continue to do for the benefit of all women.

References

1.  WHO. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2008 estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and The World Bank, World Health Organization 2010, Annex 1. 2010. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500265_eng.pdf. Last accessed:January 3, 2011.

2. Guise, J-M.  Anticipating and responding to obstetric emergencies.  Best Practice and Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2007; 21 (4): 625-638

3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia; ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 33. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002;99:159-167. 

 

Birth Trauma, Childbirth Education, Depression, Guest Posts, Maternal Mental Health, Maternal Mortality, Maternity Care, News about Pregnancy, Postpartum Depression, Pre-eclampsia, Pre-term Birth, Pregnancy Complications, PTSD , , , , , , , , , , ,